High Court of Judicature at Madras
CHITRA VENKATARAMAN & K.B.K. VASUKI, JJ.
D. Thomas Franco Rajendra Dev Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai & Another
Versus
The Disciplinary Authority & Circle Development Officer, State Bank of India, Chennai & Another
Writ Appeal Nos. 431 & 432 of 2013 & Writ Petition No. 16746 of 2013 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions & W.A. Nos. 431 & 432 of 2013
Decided On : 04-07-2013
SERVICE LAW - BANKING - DEMONSTRATION - MISCONDUCT - STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS' SERVICE RULES, 1992 - RULE 50(4), 50(5), 50(6), 54(1), 66 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLE 19(1)(A), 19(1)(B), 19(2) - TRADE UNION ACT, 1926 - SECTION 3 - Held, the demonstration held by the appellants, who are officers of the bank within the Bank's premises, would not amount to misconduct and violation of the Service Rules. The holding of a demonstration is held to be a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Thus, so long as the same is not violative of Rule 54, such holding of the demonstration certainly stands protected by Article 19. The respondents do not dispute that the right to hold a demonstration in a peaceful manner is one within the scope of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, who are officers of the State Bank of India, participated in a demonstration held within the Bank's premises during lunch hours to protest against the Bank's proposal to keep open the Banks on Sundays in all its 14,000 and odd branches. The Bank issued charge memos to the appellants alleging misconduct and initiated disciplinary proceedings against them. The appellants challenged the charge memos by filing writ petitions in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the charge memos. The Court held that the demonstration held by the appellants was a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and that the same was not violative of Rule 54 of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992. The Court further held that the Bank's contention that the appellants' conduct amounted to misconduct under Rule 50(4), 50(5), and 50(6) of the Rules was not sustainable.
Issues: Whether the demonstration held by the appellants was a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The holding of a demonstration is held to be a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Thus, so long as the same is not violative of Rule 54, such holding of the demonstration certainly stands protected by Article 19.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the charge memos.
Chitra Venkataraman, J.
1. The Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.33731 and 33732 of 2012 are the Writ Appellants before us challenging the common order of the learned single Judge dated 08.02.2013 dismissing the Writ Petitions filed to quash the charge memo issued, alleging misconduct.
2. It is seen from the facts narrated and the documents enclosed that eversince 2006, the State Bank of India Officers' Federation objected to the Management's proposal for 7 days working of the Bank. The Management is stated to have replied that the grievance of the staff, as prescribed in their memorandum, would be looked into. Since the deliberations did not have the desired effect, the All India State Bank Officers' Federation issued a strike notice vide their letter dated 02.11.2011 on 8th and 9th of November, 2011, to insist on five day banking, which was in accordance with the International Banking Practice adopted by the Reserve Bank of India. It is averred in the affidavit that based on the assurance given by the Management at that point, the strike notice was withdrawn. However, the Chairman of the respondent-State Bank of India gave a press statement on 25.8.2012 about the Bank's proposal to keep open the Banks on Sundays in all its 14,000 and odd branches and it would be 7 days' banking. Thus, when the proposal was reiterated by the Chairman of the Bank on 25.8.2012, the Officers' Association decided to hold lunch hour demonstration on 28.8.2012 in front of the local Head Office and in all the Administrative Offices of the Bank.
3. The Petitioner in W.P.No.33731 of 2012 is the Manager - Rural Business in the Local Head Office and the petitioner in W.P.No.33732 of 2012 is the Chief Manager at RBU, Local Head Office. Admittedly, both these petitioners are members actively involved in the State Bank of India Officers' Association, a registered Trade Union affiliated to the National Body, namely, All India State Bank Officers' Federation. As on the date of the proceedings taken by the Management, Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.33731 of 2012 – D.Thomas Franco Rajendra Dev was the General Secretary of the Association, Chennai Circle, from 01.08.2012. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.33732 of 2012 -D.Suresh Kumar is the elected President of the Association from 09.07.2008.
4. As already pointed out in the preceding paragraph, as decided by the Apex Body, the members of the Federation, including the Writ Petitioners, participated in the demonstration held in the local Head Office on 28.8.2012 between 2.00 p.m. and 2.10 p.m. It is averred in the affidavit that at least 250 members participated in the demonstration. It was stated to be peaceful and had not disturbed any customer, or for that matter, anyone either from going into or coming out of the Bank. The members who participated in the dharna, did not coerce anyone to participate in the demonstration. The Circle Security Department reported to the Circle Development Officer in their report dated 31.8.2012 that the State Bank of India Officers' Association (Chennai circle) SBIOA in short, had held the demonstration as part of their All India Programme in the Bank's premises during lunch hour without obtaining prior permission from the Bank. The note read that slogans were raised against the Chairman's alleged pronouncement of 7 day banking. The demonstrations demanded 5 day banking and regulated working hours. The report further pointed out that D.Suresh Kumar, as President of SBIOA Chennai Circle and D.Thomas Franco Rajendra Dev as General Secretary, led the demonstration and they addressed the gathering, shouting slogans at the Local Head Office premises. It is also evident from the Circle Development Officer's report dated 31.8.2012 that they had sent Letter No.HR:1895 dated 31.08.2012 to the General Secretary, SBIOA (Chennai Circle), advising them to desist from such behaviour and not to repeat it in future.
5. While the matter stood thus, the Writ Petitioners were issued with a charge
AIR 1963 SC 812 (O.K.Ghosh and another V. E.X.Joseph)
(2004) 3 SCC 440 (Director V. Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse)
(2006) 12 SCC 28 (Union of India V. Kunisetty Satyanarayana)
AIR 1969 SC 966 (Railway Board V. Niranjan Singh)
AIR 1984 SC 1361 (A.L.Kalra V. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.).
(1997) 3 SCC 387 (Secretary to Government and others V. ACJ.Britto).
AIR 1984 SC 1361 (A.L.Kalra V. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.)
(1997) 3 SCC 387 (Secretary to Government and others V. ACJ.Britto)
AIR 1984 SC 1361 (A.L.Kalra V. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd
AIR 1962 SC 1166 (Kameshwar Prasad V. State of Bihar);
AIR 1984 SC 1361 (A.L.Kalra V. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.)
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.